Wednesday round-up

Posted Wed, October 10th, 2012 10:03 am by Conor McEvily

Today the Court will hear oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which it will consider the constitutionality of the university’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process. Lyle previewed the case for this blog yesterday; additional coverage of the case comes from Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, Nina Totenberg of NPR, Warren Richey and Stacey Teicher Khadaroo of The Christian Science Monitor, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Ariane de Vogue of ABC News, Stephanie Condon of CBS News, Ruthann Robson of Constitutional Law Prof Blog, and Terry Baynes of Reuters. At NPR, Andrea Hsu focuses on the students at the University of Texas at Austin; she reports that for some, “despite the racial and ethnic mix, divides and stereotypes still exist”; Bill Mears at CNN likewise notes that “student voices differ on diversity.” [Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, served as co-counsel on an amicus brief in support of the university in this case, but the author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, the president of Columbia University and the dean of the Stanford University School of Education argue that abandoning the use of race in undergraduate admissions “would undermine the quality of education we can offer to all our students.” Additional commentary comes from Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic, Sergio Munoz at Media Matters, Emily Bazelon at Slate, Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Richard Epstein at the Hoover Institute’s Defining Ideas blog. (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the last link.) And at this blog’s SCOTUS for law students feature, sponsored by Bloomberg Law, Stephen Wermiel discusses the practice of recusals generally, and specifically, Justice Kagan’s recusal in the Fisher case.

Today the Court will also hear oral arguments in Moncrieffe v. Holder, in which the Court will consider the legal standard for deporting a non-citizen who has been convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana with no evidence that he received any money in any transaction. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the appellant in this case.] At Immigration Prof Blog, Jordan Wells writes that “[l]urking in the background of the parties’ discussion of statutory construction are issues of fundamental fairness.”

Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in two cases, Tibbals v. Carter and Ryan v. Gonzales, involving stays of federal habeas proceedings when the competency of a state death row inmate is in question. Lyle recaps the oral argument at this blog, and at Crime and Consequences Kent Scheidegger briefly comments on the argument as well. Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Maggie Clark at Stateline, and the Associated Press (via The Washington Post) provide additional coverage of the cases, and Kali provides links to transcripts in both cases here.

As Lyle reported for this blog, the Court did not grant any new cases yesterday. Among the cases in which the Court denied review was a case involving the amount that various parties must pay as part of an Alabama Superfund cleanup; Lawrence Hurley has coverage for Greenwire. The Court also denied review in a case involving an $18 billion judgment against Chevron Corp.; coverage comes from Paul Barrett and Greg Stohr at Bloomberg News, the BBC, Reuters, the Associated Press (via The Washington Post), and Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire. At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that the Court denied cert. in three capital cases from the Ninth Circuit.

Finally, as Lyle reported yesterday, Ohio state officials have asked the Court to stay a ruling by the Sixth Circuit that would preclude it from closing voting booths to early voters the weekend before election day to all but overseas military voters. Additional coverage of the state’s filing is provided by Joe Palazzolo at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Naftali Bendavid at the Wall Street Journal’s blog Washington Wire, Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times blog The Caucus, Ann Sanner of the Associated Press, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, and Jo Ingles of Reuters (via the Chicago Tribune).

Briefly:

At the Philadelphia Tribune, Charles D. Ellison reports on the discussion (or lack thereof) of the Court in the presidential campaign.

Upcoming Oral Arguments

3/31Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. Whether the Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se”.

On Monday afternoon Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer testified before the House Appropriations Committee. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Court’s budget for the next fiscal year and the federal judiciary, but the legislators also took full advantage of the occasion to touch on other topics as well.